In brief
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) Ministry of Economy has published its Guidelines for Submitting Competition Complaints (“Guidelines”), detailing how concerns about anti competitive conduct should be presented, evidenced and assessed under Federal Decree Law No. 36 of 2023 (“Competition Law”). The Guidelines introduce a level of procedural transparency previously absent under the Competition Law. By setting out what the Ministry of Economy expects from complainants — how facts must be organized, what information must be included and how harm should be articulated — the Guidelines position themselves as a practical, operational companion to the legal framework. Their publication signals an increasingly structured and predictable enforcement environment, one in which both complainants and respondents can anticipate a more disciplined assessment of competition concerns.
In more detail
Main features of the new Guidelines
- A clearer articulation of who may bring a complaint and on what basis. The Guidelines confirm that any individual or legal entity — including “economic establishments” (i.e., persons or entities engaged in economic activity within the UAE), consumers or government entities — may submit a complaint provided they have a “legitimate interest” in the matter. This can be shown by demonstrating, for example, (i) a presence in the relevant market, (ii) that it is a competitor or customer of the respondent, (iii) that the conduct harmed or is likely to harm its interests or those of other consumers, or (iv) that the conduct negatively affects the broader market. A complaint may only be directed towards an economic establishment and must allege conduct that violates the Competition Law and harms or threatens competition. Importantly, this confirms that the system is open to a broad group of potential complainants, but that it addresses market‑wide concerns, not private commercial disputes.
- Expectations for the factual and legal framing of a complaint. Complaints must set out a clear factual narrative, describing the conduct, timeframe, geographic scope and market context of the alleged anti-competitive practice, along with relevant information on the respondent. The legal basis for the claim must be explicitly linked to the Competition Law’s prohibitions, whether on: (i) restrictive agreements, (ii) abuse of dominance, but also — reflecting the notably wider reach of the UAE Competition Law compared to other competition regimes — (iii) abuse of economic dependency, or (iv) sales at excessively low prices. The Guidelines stress that a complaint must be analytically grounded and sufficiently detailed to justify initiating an investigation.
- Conduct that may not be the subject of a complaint. The Guidelines provide examples of conduct that cannot form the basis of a competition complaint. These include:
- Practices that cause primarily personal or individual harm, such as disseminating false information about a product or imitating a trademark. Such disputes are ordinarily resolved through civil claims before the UAE judiciary under Federal Decree‑Law No. 50 of 2022 on Commercial Transactions and only rise to the level of anti‑competitive practices where they affect the competitive structure of the market;
- Practices arising between a subsidiary or affiliated economic establishments within the same corporate group, where the parent company controls the subsidiary and holds the majority of its capital; and
- Restrictive practices or agreements covered by a formal exemption under the Competition Law, granted due to efficiency gains, economic development or direct consumer benefit.
- The evidential burden for substantiating a complaint. The burden of proof sits primarily with the complainant, and submissions must be supported by documents, communications, data or other information that substantiates both the factual allegations and the claimed effects on competition — such that there be a “reasonable and serious basis to justify opening an investigation”. The Guidelines note that vague or unsupported assertions are unlikely to proceed, protecting businesses from unsubstantiated or tactical complaints. However, this evidential threshold may present a practical challenge for complainants — particularly where the complaint concerns a competitor. The amount of market information, commercial data and internal operational detail that may be lawfully obtained about a competitor is inherently limited. As a result, complainants may need to rely on publicly available information, observable market outcomes or indirect indicators, with the expectation that the Ministry of Economy’s subsequent investigative powers (e.g., requesting documents from the respondent) may fill the evidentiary gaps once the complaint has passed the admissibility threshold.
- Administrative formalities and clarity on post-submission process. The Guidelines set out the procedural steps for submission, including the criteria for making confidential submissions. They also describe, with greater transparency than before, how the Ministry of Economy will handle a complaint once submitted, and also provide an avenue for grievance and appeal as well as the ability, in certain circumstances, for complainants to withdraw their complaint.
Comments
The publication of the Guidelines marks a practical and cultural inflection point in UAE competition enforcement. The Ministry of Economy’s expectations have become more aligned with established global competition authorities — not in terms of substantive thresholds, which remain distinct in key respects, but in the discipline and analytical structure expected from both complainants and respondents.
For businesses, this means that competition law compliance can no longer be considered a peripheral risk by companies operating in the UAE. The greater clarity around complaint preparation will likely result in a higher quality of submissions, making it more important than ever for companies to be thoughtful about their commercial conduct and the evidentiary footprint it creates. Practices involving exclusivity, pricing policies, rebates or leverage over trading partners should be documented in a way that demonstrates legitimate commercial rationale and avoids misinterpretation.
Equally, the procedural transparency in the Guidelines places a premium on internal readiness: companies need clear escalation channels, well‑organized records and a coherent strategy for engaging with the Ministry of Economy should a complaint arise. The ability to respond quickly with factual clarity and well‑supported explanations will be increasingly important.
Overall, the Guidelines signal a system that is becoming more structured, more predictable and more analytically robust — features that ultimately benefit compliant businesses but also expose those with weak internal controls or poorly evidenced commercial decisions. The takeaway is not that enforcement risk has suddenly increased, but that it will now be better organized, more rigorous and more responsive to well‑presented concerns.
To speak with us in relation to the Competition Law, or any commercial matters or issues more generally, please contact one of the Baker McKenzie team members.